Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.14 seconds)
Udayanath Autonomous College Of ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 4 July, 2017
cites
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M/S. Consolidated Engineering ... vs The Principal Secretary (Irrigation ... on 3 April, 2008
12. From the above, it is evident that the apex Court
has also taken note of the judgment of the apex Court in State
of Goa v. Western Builders, JT 2001 (8) SC 271 and also in
Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal
Secretary, Irrigation Department, JT 2008 (6) SC 22 and
has come to a conclusion that the policy of Section 14 is to
afford protection to a litigant against the bar of limitation
when he institutes a proceeding which, by reason of some
technical defect, cannot be decided on merits and is
16
dismissed. Therefore, while considering the provisions of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, proper approach will have to
be adopted and the provisions will have to be interpreted so as
to advance the cause of justice rather than abort the
proceedings. It will be well to bear in mind that an element of
mistake is inherent in the invocation of Section 14. The
section is intended to provide relief against the bar of
limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong
forum. On reading of Section 14 of the Act it becomes clear that
the legislature has enacted the said section to exempt a certain
period covered by a bona fide litigious activity. Needless to say that
in the present context Section 5 of the Limitation Act may not have
any application, but while applying such provisions condonation of
delay has to be made on showing the "sufficient case". But the said
provision is not applicable to the case of this nature, as because
due to pendency of the writ application before this Court the
petitioner approached the appellate tribunal at a belated stage.
Reason for approaching the appellate tribunal is because of the
pendency of the writ application before this Court. Therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of Section 14 of the
17
Limitation Act to exempt the period covered by bona fide litigious
activity.
State Of Goa vs M/S. Western Builders on 5 July, 2006
12. From the above, it is evident that the apex Court
has also taken note of the judgment of the apex Court in State
of Goa v. Western Builders, JT 2001 (8) SC 271 and also in
Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal
Secretary, Irrigation Department, JT 2008 (6) SC 22 and
has come to a conclusion that the policy of Section 14 is to
afford protection to a litigant against the bar of limitation
when he institutes a proceeding which, by reason of some
technical defect, cannot be decided on merits and is
16
dismissed. Therefore, while considering the provisions of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, proper approach will have to
be adopted and the provisions will have to be interpreted so as
to advance the cause of justice rather than abort the
proceedings. It will be well to bear in mind that an element of
mistake is inherent in the invocation of Section 14. The
section is intended to provide relief against the bar of
limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong
forum. On reading of Section 14 of the Act it becomes clear that
the legislature has enacted the said section to exempt a certain
period covered by a bona fide litigious activity. Needless to say that
in the present context Section 5 of the Limitation Act may not have
any application, but while applying such provisions condonation of
delay has to be made on showing the "sufficient case". But the said
provision is not applicable to the case of this nature, as because
due to pendency of the writ application before this Court the
petitioner approached the appellate tribunal at a belated stage.
Reason for approaching the appellate tribunal is because of the
pendency of the writ application before this Court. Therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of Section 14 of the
17
Limitation Act to exempt the period covered by bona fide litigious
activity.